Just released: the list of big-money donors who are making next week’s inaugurathon possible. This list includes both cash and in-kind donations. The release does not detail who gave cash and who gave in-kind, nor does it list the contribution levels (i.e., we don’t know how much you have to give to be “gold” rather than “silver”).
Platinum
Arbella Insurance Group
The Beal Companies
Comcast
The Commerce Group
Joanne and Paul Egerman
The Hanover Insurance Group
Liberty Mutual Group
Simon Brand Ventures
State Street Corporation
Gold
AFL-CIO
Amgen
AstraZeneca
AT&T
Bank of America
Beacon Capital Partners
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Cisco Systems
Citizens Bank
The Coca-Cola Company
Dunkin’ Brands
Fidelity Investments
Global Partners
John W. Henry
LNR Property Corporation
Mass Laborers District Council
MassMutual Financial Group
MetLife
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C.
1199SEIU
Staples
Stop & Shop
Silver
A.D. Makepeace Company
The Abbey Group
Ronald Ansin
Be Our Guest
Boston Scientific
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP
CA
CGI
The Connors Family
Citigroup
Cognos
Andrew Conway
David D’Alessandro
Davis Marcus Partners
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary
Eastern Bank
Goodwin Procter
Goulston & Storrs
Grossman Marketing
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Health New England
Arnold Hiatt
Hill Holiday
HMSHost
Holland & Knight LLP
Jay J. Mugaseth, Aviation Logistics, LLP
JetBlue Airways
Johnson & Johnson
Jones Lang LaSalle
James J. Karam, Robert S. Karam and Michael Biszko, Jr.
Keith Construction
Keyspan Energy
Kowloon
Legal Sea Food
Massachusetts General Hospital
MAX Ultimate Food
Maximus
Mellon Financial Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Millipore
Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP
National Grid
Neighborhood Health Plan
Nixon Peabody LLP
One Communications
P&G Gillette
Todd Patkin
PepsiCo
ProVentive
Raytheon
Restaurant Associates
Safety Insurance
Serono
Sovereign Bank
Suffolk Construction
TD Banknorth
Unisys
Uno Chicago Grill
UNUM Provident
Verizon
Waste Management
William Gallagher Associates
Sponsors
BearingPoint
David Begelfer
Jocelyn & David Belluck
BJ’s Wholesale Club
The Boston Beer Company
Cape Air
Irwin Chafetz
Dancing Deer
Dole & Bailey
Extra Mile for Libraries
Fallon Clinic
Foley Hoag LLP
Gourmet Caterers
Barbara W. and Steve Grossman
Winlow and Marian Heard
Howell Communications
Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers & Scientists
Massachusetts Restaurant Association
Michelson’s Shoes
Paul Revere Transportation
Rafanelli Events
Robert Sims
Spinnazola Foundation
Trans National Group
Friends
Antico Forno and Teramia
Ashmont Grill
Best Friends Cocoa
Bricco Restaurant
The Catered Affair
Cavalier Transportation
Cherrybrook Kitchen
Chez Henri
Espresso Plus
First Trade Union Bank
The Fudge Bar
Jody Adams & Rialto Restaurant
Ming Tsai
Montillio’s
Nantucket Off-Shore & Stirrings
Ole Mexican Grill
Panera Bread
Picante Mexican Grill
Spasso Foods LLC
Strega Foods
Union Oyster House
West Port River Vinyard and Winery
Maybe he’s considering a new name for the team: The Blue Sox
<
p>
Take that, Schilling.
Daisuke or Deval?
….they’re not taking any $ from insurers, law firms, labor unions, casino interests, developers and telecoms with kazillions of dollars directly affected by gubernatorial decisions!
…I’m not hearing enough hope in your voice, Goldstein…we must hold on to hope.
…tells me that the homeowners insurance crisis on Cape Cod will not be solved any time soon, and that we can continue to enjoy 100% increases under the FAIR plan,
…Maybe the state should eliminate the FAIR plan altogether, and leave Cape Codders to the indignities free market. There is nothing that requires Cape Codders to buy from the FAIR plan–except possibly that otherwise they might not be able to get property insurance at all. And, since most mortgagors require mortgagees to get and maintain property insurance as a condition of their mortgages, the value of property on the Cape might plummet.
<
p>
I had been led to believe that Republicans were free-market cheerleaders. In a free market, there would be no FAIR plan and no state regulation of insurers. I guess I was wrong about Republicans. They are free-market cheerleaders, as long as they are not disadvantaged by the market.
..which allows county-by-county underwriting, that is allows an insurer to offer property coverage in Worcester, and refuse to offer it in Wellfleet – while simultaneously REQUIRING statewide auto rates to subsidize bad risks in Suffolk and Middlesex!
<
p>
Never mind – the property ban has spread to Plymouth, and is working towards Bristol – then there will be some action, when the ox of prominent Democrats is gored. It’s the Massachusetts way!
…government (legislatures) has been “gaming the system” (manipulating the marketplace) since time immemorial. They do it directly in the insurance market by regulating the types of risks that insurance companies can take into account when setting premiums.
<
p>
Surely you market-oriented republicans understand that. Republicans have been “gaming the system” since time immemorial–mostly to benefit industrialists. Witness the Republican support for the War of Northern Aggression, to benefit northern industrialist. The Republican support for industrialists in the latter half of the 19th century. And the rather substantial Republican support for the military-industrial-congressional complex and the more recent prison-industrial-congressional complex (a/k/a “drug war”).
<
p>
Your complaints about your inability to find property insurance at a market rate that pleases you falls on deaf ears. If the state hadn’t stepped in to require the few insurance companies that are willing to write property insurance anywhere in the state, to also offer property insurance on the cape–at regulated rates–it is doubtful that you would be able to get property insurance there at all.
<
p>
In other words, we who have nothing to do with the cape, other than the fact that we live in Massachusetts, are subsidizing those of you who choose to live on the cape. You’re a welfare queen, whether or not you would like to acknowledge the fact.
Platinum member, Arbella Insurance Group is the group that loudly opposed to auto reform that allowed more national insurance companies into Massachusetts. Link
according to the Globe,
<
p>
<
p>
So, at least there’s a diversity of opinion represented!
They all say that Al Gore movie about the hurricanes we had here in Mass. this past fall….
First, once upon a time there were “Rockefeller Republicans” and Eisenhower…who could warn about the evils of the “military-industrial complex” and who I cannot imagine hopping into bed with Jack Abramoff and the gluttinous war profiteers of today. Frankly, I do not think the Republican party post Gingrich and Bush would nominate either Rockefeller or Eisenhower! Poor Peter Porcupine – stuck with a one dimensional party in decline. Maybe your job is to recreate a Republican party with a soul. Debate is good. Even though Romney disgusted me so much that after 13 years as an independent, I became a democrat because the Plutocrats have eaten up the Republicans – I would still rather see lively contested races….
<
p>
Second, I would like to hear more about the FAIR plan and the Cape’s insurance problems because I have never studied that issue.
<
p>
Third, I am concerned about the way the inaugural is being handled and funded. No one asked me! But I am not going to assume that what I view as a not-okay desire to have a big party without paying for it means that the Deval I worked for is bought, sold, and wrapped up. I think he is a tougher and more complex cookie then this but believe me, I and others like me WILL be watching closely.
..and I endure much snarkiness here in order to continue a discussion with the more adult members. Both sides have bullies, and yours are as offensive as mine.
<
p>
However – much of your one-dimensional-in-decline mantra is gleaned from the MSM, which you would NEVER trust to define the progressive movement! For example – have you read ANYWHERE that we are electing a new party chair – the equivalent of replacing Phil Johnston – on Jan 4th? And that there are EIGHT candidates for the post, with a VERY wide range of ideological opinion? And that a videotaped public forum was held last night in Woburn, to allow even those State Committee members who couldn’t attend to view and listen to all the candidates? You won’t – because Frank Phillips hasn’t talked to an actual Republican in ten years, although that doesn’t stop him from writing about what we are thinking in the Glob! The other day, when Daniel Bernstein was writing in the Phoenix about the New Hampshire party chair election, I challanged him to name the date of the MASSACHUSETTS election, and three of the eight candidates – so far, no response.
I am glad to hear the Republican Party in this state is cleaning house. No, I did not receive any e-mail telling me that, events in the local Republican Party do not show up as news on Yahoo, AOL or Google [pity] … and I hope once the Massachusetts Republican Party has a new platform, you post a link HERE or send me one. I do check a number of Republican Blogs as well as a number of Democratic ones. I don’t have access to State House News Service [what private citizen can afford $160+ a month anyway] – Where does the Republican Party post its Press Releases – let me know and I will check them.
<
p>
But as far as I can tell, in the issues and actions I watch, the Republican party seems to me to have [At least prior to Kerry Healey’s loss] a position that appears to me to almost worship wealth, to avoid collective responsibility for the disabled, and for public education, to loath the requirement to provide for indigent defense, and in general to have evolved into a very limited, short sighted collection of stances.
<
p>
I believe that the purpose of taxation is to take collective responsibility for those items that can only be done effectively through collective action. Is that something you feel is worth further discussion? I am not opposed to paying more taxes when the case is made to me why it is necessary.
<
p>
In attending presentations by Noah Berger, of the Mass. Budget and Policy Center http://www.massbudge… I have come to the conclusion that the Budget Crunch of 2002-2003 was created by unwise tax cuts – that it was not some inevitable disaster. See http://www.massbudge…
<
p>
And real people, the most vulnerable such as children, have been hurt, even perhaps died. See http://www.massbudge…
<
p>
Therefore, and I thrown down my virtual gauntlet on this, if it requires increased taxation to meet the mandate of the Rosie D. case, so be it:
<
p>
See Summary of Rosie D. v. Romney:
<
p>
http://www.masslegal…
This site has always been valuable for breaking stories so if you write about them, someone in the MSM will cop it.
<
p>
Thanks for letting us know!
That settles it. I’m officially disgusted. Business as usual.
<
p>
Every dollar spent by these special interests is equivalent to one dollar taken out of the piggy bank of good will that Patrick has built up with the grassroots.
<
p>
Why is this “conflict of interest” stuff so hard for people to understand?
the Sierra Club in the “Platinum” level? 😉
business as usual, David? Deval created BIG expectations with regards to challenging the status quo and affecting needed change. While it is way to early to suggest he has abandoned this quest, evidence is mounting that there is an awful lot of “business as usual” in the emerging Patrick administration.
Before Thursday’s wedding?
Do What?
Together we can clutch our pearls and get vapors.
Isn’t it a bit early to assume that these donations are a “conflict of interest”? After all, he hasn’t done anything to this point to suggest that these contributions have made any impact on policy.
<
p>
If evidence later shows that big contributors are having a major impact on policy, the “conflict of interest” argument will have more force, but for now at least I think the criticism is premature.
Paul, with full acknowledgement of the weakness of arguing by analogy, here goes:
<
p>
Imagine you’re watching a trial. Midway through arguments, the judge calls for the plaintiff’s lawyer to come closer, and you see the lawyer peel off a dozen $100 bills and puts them in front of the judge. The defendant’s lawyer digs deep, but can only come up with a couple of $20’s.
<
p>
Do you wait for the outcome of the trial to decide whether that’s proper behavior from the judge?
Just to amplify Charley’s reply, I think that the issue is that most of the names above are going to have business before the Governor. It is more a question of when as opposed to if.
<
p>
While you’re right in saying that a conflict does not per se exist yet, I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that it is at all likely that most of these donors will not need something from the executive in the next four years.
<
p>
I suppose the issue is avoided if the Governor recuses himself from issues where these interests are involved, but I imagine it would be considered somewhat empty for the Governor to recuse himself only to allow another member of the administration to make a decision.
…if Mitt Romney asked for and got this kind and LEVEL of ‘donation’ from the gilt edged special interests before HIS inaugural – what would you be writing?
I’m a little surprised people actually expected deval not to take money from “big-business” after all he used to work for “big-business.” Perhaps people thought that hope was enough to pay for a five day inaugural.
<
p>
Deval and everyone who voted for him should realize that something important happened when he got elected: Deval Patrick is no longer “an outsider” he became an insider and now he has to work with all those insiders he bashed during his campaign, I guess that’s why his relations with the legislature have gone so smoothly.
<
p>
What this means is that Deval is stuck. He has put himself in a position that will make governing very difficult. He can either try and stay an outsider (which he no longer is and I never saw him as a true outsider) and continue icy relations with the mass. political establishment or he can capitulate to the demands of the “establishment” and play what he calls “politics as usual” but risk losing support from people who saw him as a nice soft teddy bear who could save the world through rainbows and candy canes.
<
p>
Either way he loses, I expect he spends most of the next four years trying to walk the line between the two camps instead of working on his agenda (perhaps this is why he has offered so few specifics- I guess there is not much for him to lose)
<
p>
On the specific issue of the inaugural, I think anyone who didn’t think he would look to big business for large donations had their head in the sand
Well well. All the panties in a bunch again. Shows that you folks still don’t grasp how the game is played. Thus your still on the outside looking in. Where’s all the big boys on campus here that sat on the transition committees. You should be defending Deval. Loyalty is #1 in politics. If you can’t be loyal what good are you to a politician.
<
p>
Deval is doing nothing wrong or different than anyone else before him.
<
p>
Heck if this crowd didn’t have something to whine about they would be beside themselves.
<
p>
Seriously, you people should be very happy and proud and go enjoy the inaugural.
<
p>
One thing is proving to be true. Blogging and reality don’t go together very well.
Link
I acknowledge the article. But Mitt ain’t go’in no where. And as the article states, blogging is only one tool within a campaign. The ONLY thing that ensures victory……the candidate and how they connect with voters. Deval did that exceedingly well. Just promise me you will have a kick ass time this week. To the victor go the spoils.